The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-12-20
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Isl.
ands---In Admira1ty--In Banco-.
October Term, 1887.
4. S. CLEGHoRN, CoLLECToR-GEN-
ERAL vs.. ONE HUNDRED AND
NINETY-TwO BOTTLES OF SAM
SHoo AND OTHER GOODS, Loo
Nun KAI, CLAIMANT.
On appeal from PRESTON j.

on appeal from PRESTON j.
JUDD Cd, M'CULIY j., PRESTON. j., BIcKERToN ]
Opinion If the Court by, PRESTON, J.
This is an appeal from the de-
cision of Preston ]. dismissing the
libel.
The decision appealed from is a:
follows:
"This is libel filed by the Col
lector-General for the condemnation
and forfeiture of certain goods al
legged to have been imported in the
British Bark "Velocity" from Hong
Kong and not included in the in
ward manifest of such vessel.
The claimant, Loo Nun Kai, the
owner of the goods, filed an answer
in the nature of a demurrer and at
the hearing held the libel to be
sufficient.
II was admitted by Dir. Ashford
on behalf of the claimant that the
goods in question were not included
in the manifest.
1t was also admitted by Mr.. Hatch
on behalf of the libellant, that the
claimant had been prosecuted and
convicted in the Police Court of Ho-
nolulu, for concealing the goods in
question, under Section s, Chapter
VII, of the Session Laws of 1886.
The argument made on behalf of
the claimant, appears to me, sub
stantially to amount to this, that the
Government having prosecuted and
obtained a conviction againsJ the
claimant, under a law which does
not provide for a forfeiture of the
goods, cannot now by another pro-
ceeding obtain such forfeiture.
Section 545 of the Civil Code pro-
vides that the commanding officer
of a merchant vessel arriving from
foreign port shall within forty
eight hours after her arrival at a
port of entry deliver to the Collector
a true and perfect manifest of the
cargo with which she is laden, with
an account of the packages, etc.
Section 547 provides that " All
goods imported in any vessel, and
which are not included in her in
ward manifest, shall be liable to
seizure and confscation, and the
vessel and master shall be liable to
Il fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars.
The forfeiture is claimed under
this Section:
The Section of the law of 1886,
entitled can Act supplementary to
Article 26, Chapter 8, of the Civil
Code" reads as follows:
L" Section s. Any person who
shall be in any way knowingly con-
cerned in carrying, removing, de-
posting or concealing or in any
manner dealing with any opium, or
other article, the importation whereof
is prohibited, or any dutiable goods
upon which no duties have been
paid, shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding five hundred dollars"
1t is difficult to put a construction
upon this section, and it appears to
me to be more difficult from the
facts before me, to see how the
claimant could have been convicted
under it, but the Government pro-
ceeded under that Section, a breach
of which does not WORK forfeiture
of the goods, and il therefore ap-
pears to me that they cannot by
this proceeding obtain d, rondenina-
ton of these goods, for the omission
of the master to place them on the
manifest.
l am of opinion that this libel
should be dismissed and so order"
By THE COURT: We are of opin-
ion that this appeal must be allowed.
We all think that the goods hav-
ing become liable to forfeiture i'm
upon the offense 1. G. the
delivery of the manifest by the
Master to the COilector-Ge be-.
ing committed, no action by any
officer of the Government could
purge such forfeiture, and therefore
that the decision appealed from
should be reversed, and decree
made in terms of the prayer of the
libel, and it is so ordered.
f. M. Hatch for libellant; V. V.
4 Sb ford for. olaiD,apt
Honolulu, Nov. 26, 1887.